Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12201)	5/6/2002 8:59:34 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

All this talk about Bush, Gore, and Quayle last evening and nary a word about Ashcroft, my personal favorite. So, in the interests of equal time... Outlawing Clint Eastwood By William Raspberry Monday, May 6, 2002; Page A21 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recently added Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" to its list of "great" films. That puts it right up there with "Casablanca," "Annie Hall," "Schindler's List" and 70 or so other all-timers. Some movie buffs are wondering why the list does not (as yet) include such epics as "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "It Happened One Night." I'm wondering: Why isn't Attorney General John Ashcroft doing what he can to put Eastwood behind bars? You will recall that "Unforgiven" portrays, in unforgettably graphic terms, a number of murders. And if you're thinking that I've gone out of my mind, let me tell you that I don't really want Eastwood in jail. I don't even want to talk about "Unforgiven." What I really want to talk about is Ashcroft's official outrage over virtual child pornography. But I'm afraid if I'd said that straight out, you might have refused to hear a thing I was saying. Just as Ashcroft is refusing to hear what the Supreme Court said in overturning a 1996 federal law aimed at ending the traffic in computer-generated child pornography. That legislation prescribed jail terms for the sale, distribution, possession or conveyance of images that "appear to be" of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Ashcroft's people are already at work drafting legislation to undo the awful effect of the ruling. The rationale for legislating against child pornography had been that, whether or not children are harmed by those viewing, distributing or e-mailing the stuff, the children used in making it are harmed. Moreover, the use of live models is evidence that children have been harmed. It is for similar reasons that "snuff movies" were unlawful -- not because of execrable taste or the possibility that they might have led a viewer to antisocial behavior, but because their very production involved murder. The whole argument falls apart in the case of computer-generated porn -- or of violent movies. Which is why I started the column with Eastwood. Everybody understands that people aren't really killed in his movies. Some people think some Eastwood movies are too violent and refuse to see them. Others think they're inappropriate for young children. But nobody thinks that making them is, or ought to be, a crime. But how can you defend child porn, virtual or otherwise? That's the question that gets close to where I think Ashcroft is. He is so sure that we'd all be better off if this trash didn't exist that he wants to zap it out of existence. But since the people who make, distribute and take pleasure in this stuff won't voluntarily accede to his wishes, he'd invoke the force of law. It's a reaction more dangerous to our constitutional liberties than he recognizes, though well short of another reaction one hears: Anyone who would defend the constitutionality of kid porn, even computer-generated kid porn, must desire its existence. Well, I don't desire its existence, even though I wonder if the antisocial impact of its existence is as bad as some people claim. I mean, are pedophiles more likely to use porn to get revved for attacks on children or to use it as sublimation? I'm not sure we know the answer to the same question with regard to adult pornography. Does viewing "dirty" pictures make you more or less prone to commit sex crimes? But those are questions for researchers. America's chief law enforcement officer ought to understand the difference between legal sufferance and condonation, between saying a thing is bad and saying it ought to be unlawful. It's okay to have a problem with gratuitous cinematic violence -- even to suspect deep down that such simulated violence has a deleterious effect on the society. But let's not put Clint Eastwood in jail. © 2002 The Washington Post Company